Asklemmy

43892 readers

1084 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

280

ELI5 why is anarchy not "the guy with the bigger stick" making the rules? (lemmy.giftedmc.com)

submitted 10 months ago by haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

208 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).

Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Huh? Organized labor can only exist when laws protect them. Otherwise companies will always find scabs, and eventually, willing long term workers.

If organized labor is the law, then they are government all over again.

Not saying positing labor as a governmental body is a bad idea.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For most of the history of capitalism, and in many cases still to this day, organized labor and various labor actions have been illegal, but it still happens.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

True, but what organized labor does exist is supported by, and validated by government.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No. Organized labor exists in spite of the government. For example, in the US, sympathy strikes are illegal. Many jurisdictions have so called right-to-work laws which weaken unions. A union is its members, not the laws to which it's subjugated.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Lol sure. Any examples of organized labor existing in the absence of government, where that group themselves does not become the enforcing, power projecting government?

What you're describing are the symptoms of imperfect government.

The absence of government is a power vacuum that will be filled. Things like labor organization require structure, and if they have to do not have it, if they persist, they become government. (Enforcement, power projection, etc.)

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What are laws other than agreed upon tenets to live one's life by? We write them down and have a big grandiose way of announcing new legislation currently, all anarchists would do is make sure that those are baked into the social contract. Anarchists and Marxists would be the first group of people to enshrine worker protections into their society.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

My point is that a governmental body, an enforcer of the social contract (whatever social contract the group wants) is required. I.e. someone with a stick.